View
11
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Assessment & Evaluation. NSF CISE REU Sites PI Meeting March 18, 2011. Project Supporters for 2010 Implementation. 2009 Working Group Members - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Project Supporters for 2010 Implementation
2009 Working Group MembersGuy Alain Amousou Chris Aberson Wendy Cooper Teresa Dahlberg Andy Fagg Stephen Gilbert Manfred Huber Niels Lobo Sanjay Madrias Joan Peckham Eric Wong Yu-Dong Yoa
Kevin Zeng
2010 Implementation MembersBrooklyn College, CUNY Iowa State University University of Alabama UNC Charlotte
Colorado Springs Jackson State University University of Central Florida University of South Carolina
Dakota State University Louisiana State University University of Texas Austin
Depaul University Montclaire State University University of Houston University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Depauw University Marshall University University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Hope College Oklahoma University University of Massachusetts Amherst
13 used Common Application 20 used Survey
2010 Assessment Project
• Common Application • a la carte Survey • Evaluation Toolkit
– Coitweb.uncc.edu/reu/toolkit
• Future Directions– Refinements– Longitudinal Follow up
Common Application 2010
• 13 sites utilized• Total of 1,006 applicants• Most students applied to only 1
– One student applied to 30– 2 to 3 schools was common
• Application Range: 29-152• Average Number of Applications per Site: 77• ~ 130 accepted = 18% approximate acceptance rate
697
309
Unique Applicants Applied to 1+Sites
Unique Applicant Gender
Gender
Female27%
Male72%
Unspecified1%
Males: 500
Females: 187
Unspecified: 10
Unique Applicant Ethnicity
68124
524
426
149
Ethnicity
10%
18%
7%1%61%
2%1%Asian
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Pacific Islander
Caucasian
Native American
Multi-ethnic/Other
Applicant Level in School
86
191
294
123
Level
Freshman12%
Sophomore28%
Junior42%
Senior18%
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Degrees Considering
Degree most interested in pursuing
Masters programs: 479 (69%)
Phd programs: 180 (26%)
Undecided: 3 (<1%)
31 (5%) not considering graduate programs
A la Carte Survey 2010• Pre survey: May-June 2010• Post survey: July-August 2010• Total N: 339 REU Students; 20 Sites
Pre Demographics (N=197):
Gender- 69% Male (135), 28% Female (56), 3% Unspecified (6)
Ethnicity- 61% Caucasian, 10% African American, 10% Asian, 7% Other, 6% Hispanic, 5% unspecified, 1% Native American
Level- 57% Senior, 31% Junior, 11% Sophomore, 1% Freshman
Post Demographics (N=142):
Gender- 70% Male (99), 30% Female (43), Unspecified (0)
Ethnicity- 63% Caucasian, 10% African American, 10% Other, 7% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 1% Native American, 5% unspecified
Level- 62% Senior, 27% Junior, 10% Sophomore, 1% Freshman
Methodology
• Items– 4 point Likert type scale, 4 being positive– Some items were reverse scored– Collapsed into construct means representing 4 variables– Ethnicity collapsed into URM status
• Reliability
– Coefficient alphas above .547 • MANOVA
– To test hypothesis that there would be differences between means based on time, gender, URM status
What was measured• Self Efficacy (15 items)
– I can formulate a research problem
• Intent to attend graduate school (15 items)– I plan to apply to graduate school in a computing discipline
• Attitudes towards computing (38 items)– I like to use computer science to solve problems
• Help seeking/coping skills (30 items)– When I do poorly on an exam, typically I….skip class
Outcomes• Increases at Post Assessment were not significant• No main effects, no interactions
Construct Time Mean Std. Deviation
Self- Efficacy pre 3.05 0.47
post 3.43 0.40
Intent pre 3.10 0.46
post 3.19 0.47
Attitude pre 3.59 0.32
post 3.65 0.29
Help- Coping pre 2.94 0.33
post 2.98 0.37
What does this mean?
• We know there is impact from the REU experience
• More investigation is needed
• How to detect impact– Cultural nuance may be missed by survey with small
sample of women and URMs relative to men
Post Program Evaluation
• 38% reported plans to participate in future REU
• For 18%, this was not their first REU
Implications & Limitations
• Effects are small given the time frame
• Effects may be delayed• Are we measuring the
right things?• Need more exploration
• Self-report• Sample• Possible ceiling effect• Consider time series
design
Next Steps
Common Application• Track offers• Follow up with
applicants• Compare
accepted/declined on key indicators
Survey• Deeper analysis• Larger sample• More variables, or
different variables• Control groups?• Learning outcomes?
Collaborations for Research & Writing Circles
Recommended